The Constitution of the United States

Adapted from S.PUB.103-21 (1994), prepared by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress, providing
the original text of each clause of the Constitution with an accompanying explanation of its meaning and how that meaning has changed over time.

Introduction

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government.
Its first three words – "We The People" – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is
recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution reaffirms its status as the
"First Branch" of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary
for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both
houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of
majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the central and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental
operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.

This annotated version of the Constitution provides the original text (left-hand column) with commentary about the meaning of the original text and how it has changed
since 1789...Read more

Established by Congress to disseminate information about the U.S. Constitution on a non-partisan basis in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, painting by Howard Chandler Christy,U.S. Senate link

Scene at the Signing of the U.S. Constitution by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940. George Washington standing, elected in unanimity as president of the Constitutional Convention. Link to Wikipedia article.

Ginsburg: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrapped up a trip to Egypt with an appearance on Egyptian TV,
where in a lengthy interview she discussed the U.S. Constitution and whether it should be a model for Egypt.

While urging that the U.S. Constitution be used as inspiration, Ginsburg said
Egyptians should look to other countries with newer constitutions for guidance, the Huffington Post reports.

"Let me say first, that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom," Ginsburg said in the 18-minute
interview with Al Hayat TV, which is posted on YouTube. "If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any
difference."

Ginsburg was in Egypt to meet with judges, legal experts, law faculty and students in Cairo and Alexandria. According to the U.S. Embassy, she was there to "'listen and
learn' with her Egyptian counterparts as they begin Egypt's constitutional transition to democracy," the Huffington Post notes.

On the television program, in a response to a question about drafting a constitution in the modern era, Ginsburg said she would not look to the U.S. Constitution when
drafting in the year 2012 because it excluded women, slaves and Native Americans.

Rather, those writing constitutions should look at all constitution writing since World War II. She pointed specifically to the South African constitution and Canada's
charter of rights and freedoms as good modern examples.

"Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," she said.

The Huffington Post reports that no other justice on the current high court has publicly advised another country on the creation of a constitution.Read more

It is written in an elegant, clerical hand, on four sheets of parchment, each two feet wide and a bit more than two feet high, about the size of an eighteenth-century
newspaper but finer, and made not from the pulp of plants but from the hide of an animal. Some of the ideas it contains reach across ages and oceans, to antiquity; more were, at the time, newfangled.
"We the People," the first three words of the preamble, are giant and Gothic: they slant left, and, because most of the rest of the words slant right, the writing zigzags. It took four months to
debate and to draft, including two weeks to polish the prose, neat work done by a committee of style. By Monday, September 17, 1787, it was ready. That afternoon, the Constitution of the United
States of America was read out loud in a chamber on the first floor of Pennsylvania’s State House, where the delegates to the Federal Convention had assembled to subscribe their names to a new system
of government, "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity."Read more

'We the People' Loses Appeal Around the World

Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is
waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that
"of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version."

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. "The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,"
according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of
Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted
by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

"Among the world’s democracies," Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, "constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s
and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s."

"The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that
the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II."

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the
Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the
Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional
marketplace. "Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1," he said.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in "Our Undemocratic
Constitution," "the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today." (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work
out.)﻿ [Monticello.org, tree of liberty question]

Thomas Jefferson

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to
James Madison, once said that every constitution "naturally expires at the end of 19 years" because "the earth belongs always to the living generation." These days, the overlap between the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But
the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and
health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala
and Mexico.)

Many foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in part because of what they consider its
parochialism.

"America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater," Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: "Canadian law," he wrote, "serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world."
The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those
arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against "such reasonable limits" as "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. "Every banana republic in the world has
a bill of rights," he said.

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours," he said, adding: "We guarantee freedom of speech and
of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called
to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!"

"Of course," Justice Scalia continued, "it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ "

Since the initial 1787–88 debate over ratification of the Constitution there have been sporadic calls for the convening of a second convention to modify and correct
perceived short comings in the Federal system it established. Article V of the Constitution
provides two methods for amending the nation’s frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds of those members
present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire
membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the
several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".[3]Read more

Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We The People Can Correct It)

The Constitution is one of the most revered documents in American politics. Yet this is a document that regularly places in the White House candidates who did not in fact
get a majority of the popular vote. It gives Wyoming the same number of votes as California, which has seventy times the population of the Cowboy State. And it offers the President the power to
overrule both houses of Congress on legislation he disagrees with on political grounds. Is this a recipe for a republic that reflects the needs and wants of today's Americans?Read more

Levinson argues that too many of our Constitution's provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid
ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Less important, perhaps, but certainly problematic, is the appointment of Supreme Court judges
for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today. Democratic debate leaves few
stones unturned, but we tend to take our basic constitutional structures for granted. Levinson boldly challenges the American people to undertake a long overdue public discussion on how they might
best reform this most hallowed document and construct a constitution adequate to our democratic values.Read moreSanford Levinson,Wikipedia

How Democratic is the American Constitution? 2nd Ed.

Yale political science professor Robert Dahl takes a critical look at our Constitution and why we continue to uphold it, though it is "a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, and
adopted in only thirteen states." As an instrument for truly democratic government, Dahl argues, it fails. With insufficient models to guide them and a distrust of unfettered democracy, the Framers
allowed several "undemocratic elements" in: slavery was accepted and suffrage effectively limited to white men. But Dahl saves his most potent criticism for two provisions that have remained
unchanged: the electoral college and the Senate, both of which tie votes to geography rather than population, thereby skewing political power toward coalitions of smaller states whose interests may
not necessarily coincide with the nation's as a whole. And as the 2000 presidential election illustrated, the electoral college can frustrate the will of the majority.Read more

In this interview, conducted by Margaret Levi, Robert Dahl grounds his motivation for studying democracy not only in his academic encounters but also in his
experiences growing up in Alaska, attending public schools there, and working with longshore workers as a boy. He does not want to replicate the utopian visions of classical philosophers. His
commitment is to the development of an empirical model of democracy that guides scholars in their efforts to determine the extent of democratization throughout the world as well as in the United
States.Interview transcript.

Writing in the Sunday New York Times, Seidman said it was
time to abandon the U.S. Constitution and its "archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

"As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is." he wrote. Imagine the president or
Congress decides on a course of action. "Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: A group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present
situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his
or her mind because of this divination?"

The op-ed, written in advance of Seidman’s new book, On Constitutional Disobedience, brought more than 700 emails in Seidman’s in box, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) reports. "My email box may never
recover," Seidman told the blog. "I would say a large percentage of them are seriously abusive. Quite a few are anti-Semitic. Some are actual threats."Read more﻿

What would the Framers of the Constitution make of multinational corporations? Nuclear weapons? Gay marriage? They led a preindustrial country, much of it dependent on
slave labor, huddled on the Atlantic seaboard. The Founders saw society as essentially hierarchical, led naturally by landed gentry like themselves. Yet we still obey their commands, two centuries
and one civil war later. According to Louis Michael Seidman, it's time to stop.

In On Constitutional Disobedience, Seidman argues that, in order to bring our basic law up to date, it needs benign neglect. This is a highly controversial assertion. The
doctrine of "original intent" may be found on the far right, but the entire political spectrum--left and right--shares a deep reverence for the Constitution. And yet, Seidman reminds us, disobedience
is the original intent of the Constitution. The Philadelphia convention had gathered to amend the Articles of Confederation, not toss them out and start afresh. The "living Constitution" school tries
to bridge the gap between the framers and ourselves by reinterpreting the text in light of modern society's demands. But this attempt is doomed, Seidman argues. One might stretch "due process of law"
to protect an act of same-sex sodomy, yet a loyal-but-contemporary reading cannot erase the fact that the Constitution allows a candidate who lost the popular election to be seated as president. And
that is only one of the gross violations of popular will enshrined in the document. Seidman systematically addresses and refutes the arguments in favor of Constitutional fealty, proposing instead
that it be treated as inspiration, not a set of commands.

The Constitution is, at its best, a piece of poetry to liberty and self-government. If we treat it as such, the author argues, we will make better progress in achieving
both. Read more

Myths of the American Revolution - by John Ferling

Many American colonists signed up as soldiers for the regular pay. As one recruit put it, "I might as well endeavor to get as much for my skin as I could." (Joe Ciardiello)

A noted historian debunks the conventional wisdom about America's War of Independence

We think we know the Revolutionary War. After all, the American Revolution and the war that accompanied it not only determined the nation we would become but also
continue to define who we are. The Declaration of Independence, the Midnight Ride, Valley Forge—the whole glorious chronicle of the colonists’ rebellion against tyranny is in the American DNA. Often
it is the Revolution that is a child’s first encounter with history.

Yet much of what we know is not entirely true. Perhaps more than any defining moment in American history, the War of Independence is swathed in beliefs not borne out by
the facts. Here, in order to form a more perfect understanding, the most significant myths of the Revolutionary War are reassessed.Read more﻿ Read more below on this
page.

There are two ways of interpreting your question. Either: How many presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives. Or: How many presidents owned slaves while
serving as chief executive? Many books get the answers to these questions wrong, and when I speak on the presidents and ask these two questions, audiences invariably low-ball the answer to
both.

It comes as a shock to most Americans’ sensibilities that more than one in four U.S. presidents were slaveholder: 12 owned slaves at some point in their lives.
Significantly, 8 presidents owned slaves while living in the Executive Mansion. Put another way, for 50 of the first 60 years of the new republic, the president was a slaveholder.

Following is the number of slaves each of the 12 slaveholding presidents owned. (CAPS indicate the president owned slaves while serving as the chief
executive):[1]

A number of presidents benefited electorally from "the peculiar institution," especially the four earliest presidents from the then-largest slave state, Virginia. To
understand why, one must go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when Southern delegates argued that black slaves should be counted as complete persons, while Northern delegates didn’t want
them counted at all since they were not citizens and couldn’t vote. To get over this hurdle and create a unified nation (their highest priority), the delegates decided to negotiate: the North
proposed counting black slaves as half a person, and the South countered with three-quarters, so they compromised at three-fifths.

The "three-fifths" clause in the Constitution (Article I, section 2) was all about determining a state’s representation in Congress. That meant southern states
collectively gained an advantage that often provided the margin of victory in close elections. In his book Negro President, Garry Wills points out that the slave states always had one-third more
seats in Congress than their free population justified. This was decisive in the Election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson beat out northern rivals John Adams and Aaron Burr in the House of
Representatives

Also, three key Southerners – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – finagled locating the national capital, Washington, DC, in slave territory. The
capital started out in New York City, in a free state, then moved to Philadelphia. But in Philadelphia a slave-owner could only keep a slave for six months before freeing him, unless he was
temporarily sent into slave territory, which was inconvenient to the owner. So the founders set aside land around a slave town, Alexandria, Virginia, to serve as the capital of the new
nation.

It’s a commonplace that Abraham Lincoln never trafficked in slaves, much less owned them – indeed, he "freed the slaves." But here’s the shocker: Although the slave
trade had been abolished in the District of Columbia in 1850, slaves inhabited the capital for another 15 years – till the end of the Civil War. Dwell on that thought: Lincoln fought the Civil War in
a slave city – the Great Emancipator inhabited a White House staffed by slaves.

George Washington, Slave Catcher - New York Times

AMID the car and mattress sales that serve as markers for Presidents’ Day, Black History Month reminds Americans to focus on our common history. In 1926, the
African-American historian Carter G. Woodson introduced Negro History Week as a commemoration built around the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Now February serves as a point of
collision between presidential celebration and marginalized black history.

While Lincoln’s role in ending slavery is understood to have been more nuanced than his reputation as the great emancipator would suggest, it has taken longer for us
to replace stories about cherry trees and false teeth with narratives about George Washington’s slaveholding.

When he was 11 years old, Washington inherited 10 slaves from his father’s estate. He continued to acquire slaves — some through the death of family members and others
through direct purchase. Washington’s cache of enslaved people peaked in 1759 when he married the wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis. His new wife brought more than 80 slaves to the estate at
Mount Vernon. On the eve of the American Revolution, nearly 150 souls were counted as part of the property there.

In 1789, Washington became the first president of the United States, a planter president who used and sanctioned black slavery. Washington needed slave labor to
maintain his wealth, his lifestyle and his reputation. As he aged, Washington flirted with attempts to extricate himself from the murderous institution — "to get quit of Negroes," as he famously
wrote in 1778. But he never did.

During the president’s two terms in office, the Washingtons relocated first to New York and then to Philadelphia. Although slavery had steadily declined in the North,
the Washingtons decided that they could not live without it. Once settled in Philadelphia, Washington encountered his first roadblock to slave ownership in the region — Pennsylvania’s Gradual
Abolition Act of 1780.

The act began dismantling slavery, eventually releasing people from bondage after their 28th birthdays. Under the law, any slave who entered Pennsylvania with an owner
and lived in the state for longer than six months would be set free automatically. This presented a problem for the new president.

Washington developed a canny strategy that would protect his property and allow him to avoid public scrutiny. Every six months, the president’s slaves would travel
back to Mount Vernon or would journey with Mrs. Washington outside the boundaries of the state. In essence, the Washingtons reset the clock. The president was secretive when writing to his personal
secretary Tobias Lear in 1791: "I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington."

The president went on to support policies that would protect slave owners who had invested money in black lives. In 1793, Washington signed the first fugitive slave
law, which allowed fugitives to be seized in any state, tried and returned to their owners. Anyone who harbored or assisted a fugitive faced a $500 penalty and possible imprisonment.

Washington almost made it through his two terms in office without a major incident involving his slave ownership. On a spring evening in May of 1796, though, Ona
Judge, the Washingtons’ 22-year-old slave woman, slipped away from the president’s house in Philadelphia. At 15, she had joined the Washingtons on their tour of Northern living. She was among a small
cohort of nine slaves who lived with the president and his family in Philadelphia. Judge was Martha Washington’s first attendant; she took care of Mrs. Washington’s personal needs.

What prompted Judge’s decision to bolt was Martha Washington’s plan to give Judge away as a wedding gift to her granddaughter. Judge fled Philadelphia for Portsmouth,
N.H., a city with 360 free black people, and virtually no slaves. Within a few months of her arrival, Judge married Jack Staines, a free black sailor, with whom she had three children. Judge and her
offspring were vulnerable to slave catchers. They lived as free people, but legally belonged to Martha Washington.

Washington and his agents pursued Judge for three years, dispatching friends, officials and relatives to find and recapture her. Twelve weeks before his death,
Washington was still actively pursuing her, but with the help of close allies, Judge managed to elude his slave-catching grasp.

George Washington died on Dec. 14, 1799. At the time of his death, 318 enslaved people lived at Mount Vernon and fewer than half of them belonged to the former
president. Washington’s will called for the emancipation of his slaves following the death of his wife. He completed in death what he had been unwilling to do while living, an act made easier because
he had no biological children expecting an inheritance. Martha Washington lived until 1802 and upon her death all of her human property went to her inheritors. She emancipated none of her
slaves.

When asked by a reporter if she had regrets about leaving the Washingtons, Judge responded, "No, I am free, and have, I trust, been made a child of God by the means."
Ona Judge died on Feb. 25, 1848. She has earned a salute during the month of February.

Correction: February 20, 2015

An Op-Ed article on Monday referred imprecisely to Martha Washington’s handling of George Washington’s slaves after his death in 1799. While she did not emancipate her
own slaves, as the essay noted, in 1801 she freed all of his slaves, as he had requested.

____________________

Erica Armstrong Dunbar, an associate professor of black studies and history at the University of Delaware, is the author of "A Fragile Freedom: African American Women
and Emancipation in the Antebellum City."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed;[7]

____________________________________________

Hypocrisy of American Slavery

The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration of Independence
was first published. Before final approval, Congress, having made a few alterations to some of the wording, also deleted nearly a fourth of the draft, including a passage critical of the slave trade.
At that time many members of Congress, including Jefferson, owned slaves, which clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial "anti-slavery" passage.[13] In 1776, abolitionist
Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote, though the first draft stated " All free men are created equal":
Wikipedia

If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand,
and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.[13]

The Monster of Monticello - The Real Thomas Jefferson

THOMAS JEFFERSON is in the news again, nearly 200 years after his death — alongside a high-profile biography by the journalist Jon Meacham comes a damning portrait of
the third president by the independent scholar Henry Wiencek.

We are endlessly fascinated with Jefferson, in part because we seem unable to reconcile the rhetoric of liberty in his writing with the reality of his slave owning and
his lifetime support for slavery. Time and again, we play down the latter in favor of the former, or write off the paradox as somehow indicative of his complex depths.

Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after
discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.

Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His
proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.

There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the "self-evident" truth that all men are
"created equal," he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to
write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.

But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the
Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human
beings.

Rather than encouraging his countrymen to liberate their slaves, he opposed both private manumission and public emancipation. Even at his death, Jefferson failed to
fulfill the promise of his rhetoric: his will emancipated only five slaves, all relatives
of his mistress Sally Hemings, and condemned nearly 200 others to the auction block. Even Hemings remained a slave, though her children by Jefferson went free.

Nor was Jefferson a particularly kind master. He sometimes punished slaves by selling them away from their families and friends, a retaliation that was
incomprehensibly cruel even at the time. A proponent of humane criminal codes for whites, he advocated harsh, almost barbaric, punishments for slaves and free blacks. Known for expansive views of
citizenship, he proposed legislation to make emancipated blacks "outlaws" in America, the land of their birth. Opposed to the idea of royal or noble blood, he proposed expelling from Virginia the
children of white women and black men.

Jefferson also dodged opportunities to undermine slavery or promote racial equality. As a state legislator he blocked consideration of a law that might have eventually
ended slavery in the state.

As president he acquired the Louisiana Territory but did nothing to stop the spread of slavery into that vast "empire of liberty." Jefferson told his neighbor Edward
Coles not to emancipate his own slaves, because free blacks were "pests in society" who were "as incapable as children of taking care of themselves." And while he wrote a friend that he sold slaves
only as punishment or to unite families, he sold at least 85 humans in a 10-year period to raise cash to buy wine, art and other luxury goods.

Jefferson claimed he had "never seen an elementary trait of painting or sculpture" or poetry among blacks and argued that blacks’ ability to "reason" was "much
inferior" to whites’, while "in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." He conceded that blacks were brave, but this was because of "a want of fore-thought, which prevents their seeing
a danger till it be present."

A scientist, Jefferson nevertheless speculated that blackness might come "from the color of the blood" and concluded that blacks were "inferior to the whites in the
endowments of body and mind."

Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that "if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers
of our own children." But he never said what that "something" should be.

In 1820 Jefferson was shocked by the heated arguments over slavery during the debate over the Missouri Compromise. He believed that by opposing the spread of slavery in the West, the children of the revolution were about to "perpetrate" an "act
of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world."

If there was "treason against the hopes of the world," it was perpetrated by the founding generation, which failed to place the nation on the road to liberty for all.
No one bore a greater responsibility for that failure than the master of Monticello.

Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free

No event in American history was more pivotal-or more furiously contested-than Congress's decision to declare independence in July 1776. Even months after American blood
had been shed at Lexington and Concord, many colonists remained loyal to Britain. John Adams, a leader of the revolutionary effort, said bringing the fractious colonies together was like getting
"thirteen clocks to strike at once."

Other books have been written about the Declaration, but no author has traced the political journey from protest to Revolution with the narrative scope and flair of John
Ferling. Independence takes readers from the cobblestones of Philadelphia into the halls of Parliament, where many sympathized with the Americans and furious debate erupted over how to deal with the
rebellion. Independence is not only the story of how freedom was won, but how an empire was lost.

At this remarkable moment in history, high-stakes politics was intertwined with a profound debate about democracy, governance, and justice. John Ferling, drawing on a
lifetime of scholarship, brings this passionate struggle to life as no other historian could. Independence will be hailed as the finest work yet from the author Michael Beschloss calls "a national
resource."

"This is how it really happened. In unequivocal prose, John Ferling captures the combined bluster and outrage on both sides of the Atlantic. He exposes the quirks, while
exploring the vision, of the opinionated, opportunistic delegates who were present in Philadelphia in 1776; he shows us just how they rhetorically overcame the "mystique of invincibility" that
attached to the British military, before launching America, in the words of one delegate, "on a most Tempestuous Sea." Independence is rich in personality, and Ferling unsurpassed as an authority.
This is no ordinary history."—Andrew Burstein, author of Jefferson’s Secrets, and coauthor of Madison and Jefferson

"John Ferling has established himself as one of the leading chroniclers of the American Revolution, but Independence goes beyond anything he has written before. Instead
of recycling the familiar story of the Revolution, he has given us an enlightening and exciting book that proves that history has no guarantees or foreordained outcomes. Expertly blending
biographical vignettes with fast-paced narrative and sure-footed interpretation, Ferling captures the mystery of historical contingency in exploring the period between the Boston Tea Party in 1773
and the declaration of American independence in 1776. Not even the founding fathers knew what the future would bring; Ferling performs a national public service in reminding us of this basic fact,
and demonstrating it with elegance and style."—R. B. Bernstein, distinguished adjunct professor of law, New York Law School, and author of The Founding Fathers Reconsidered and Thomas
Jefferson.Read more﻿

................American Revolutionary War, Wikipedia.............

Clockwise from top left: Surrender of Lord Cornwallis after the Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Trenton, The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Long Island, Battle of Guilford Court House

The war had its origins in the resistance of many Americans to taxes imposed by the British parliament, which they claimed were unconstitutional. Patriot protests escalated into boycotts and the destruction of a
shipment of tea at the Boston Tea Party. The British government punished Massachusetts by closing the port of Boston and
taking away self-government. The Patriots responded by setting up a shadow government that took control of the province
outside of Boston. Twelve other colonies supported Massachusetts, formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their
resistance, and set up committees and conventions which effectively seized power from the royal governments. In April 1775 fighting broke out between Massachusetts militia units and British regulars
at Lexington and Concord. The Continental Congress appointed General George Washington to take charge of militia units besieging British forces in Boston, forcing them to evacuate the city in March
1776. Congress supervised the war, giving Washington command of the new Continental Army; he also coordinated state militia units.

In 1778, having failed in the northern states, the British shifted strategy toward the southern colonies, where they planned to enlist many Loyalist regiments. British
forces had initial success in bringing Georgia and South Carolina under control in 1779 and 1780, but the Loyalist surge was far weaker than expected. In 1781 British forces moved through Virginia,
but their escape was blocked by a French naval victory. Washington took control of a Franco-American siege at Yorktown and captured the entire British force of over 7,000 men. The defeat at Yorktown finally turned
the British Parliament against the war, and in early 1782 voted to end offensive operations in North America. The war against France and Spain continued however, with the British defending Gibraltar
against a long running Franco-Spanish siege, while the British navy scored key victories, especially the Battle of the Saintes in 1782. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris ended the war and recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded roughly by what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and the Mississippi River to the west.
France gained its revenge and little else except a heavy national debt, while Spain acquired Britain's Florida colonies.[21][22]Read more

..............Benjamin Franklin "The First American"...............

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin in his marten fur hat. Painting by John Trumbull (1756-1843).

BENJAMIN FRANKLINis the story of one of the most remarkable and multi-talented human beings
the world has ever known. An epic yarn spanning most of the 18th century, the three-part series follows Franklin's career from humble beginnings in Boston to international superstardom: first as a
scientist and revolutionary, and then as a founding father and America's first diplomat to France. Link to Ben FranklinPBS Documentary
YouTube video

"Join, or Die" is a well-known political cartoon, created by Benjamin Franklin and first published in his Pennsylvania Gazette on May 9, 1754.[1] The original publication by the Gazette is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist
in America.[2] It is a woodcut showing a snake cut into eighths,
with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the thirteen American colonies or region. New England was represented as one segment, rather than the four colonies it was at that time. In addition, Delaware (then a part of Pennsylvania) and Georgia
were omitted completely. Thus, it has eight segments of snake rather than the traditional 13 colonies.[3] The two northernmost British American colonies at the time, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, were not
represented, nor were any British Caribbean possessions. The cartoon appeared along with Franklin's editorial about the
"disunited state" of the colonies, and helped make his point about the importance of colonial unity. This cartoon was used in the French and Indian War to symbolize that the colonies needed to join together with Great Britain to defeat the
French and Indians. It became a symbol of colonial freedom during the American Revolutionary War.Read more

Boston Tea Party December 16, 1773

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about
the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was
selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty.
Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a
near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters. Read moreRead more onWikipedia

Give me liberty or give me death, March 23, 1775

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me,Give me Liberty, or give me Death!

One of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his
defense of historic rights.Read more

Massachusetts Colony was a hotbed of sedition in the spring of 1775. Preparations for conflict with the Royal authority had been underway throughout the winter with
the production of arms and munitions, the training of militia (including the minutemen), and the organization of defenses. In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts decided to
counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the
village of Lexington. Read more

Ben Franklin Joins the American Revolution 1775

Returning to Philadelphia from England in 1775, the "wisest American" kept his political leanings to himself. But not for long.

Just as his son William had helped him with his famed kite-flying experiment, now William’s son, Temple, a lanky and fun-loving 15-year-old, lent a hand as he lowered a
homemade thermometer into the ocean. Three or four times a day, they would take the water’s temperature and record it on a chart. Benjamin Franklin had learned from his Nantucket cousin, a whaling
captain named Timothy Folger, about the course of the warm Gulf Stream. Now, during the latter half of his six-week voyage home from London, Franklin, after writing a detailed account of his futile
negotiations, turned his attention to studying the current. The maps he published and the temperature measurements he made are now included on NASA’s Web site, which notes how remarkably similar they
are to ones based on infrared data gathered by modern satellites.

The voyage was notably calm, but in America the longbrewing storm had begun. On the night of April 18, 1775, while Franklin was in mid-ocean, a contingent of British
redcoats headed north from Boston to arrest the tea party planners Samuel Adams and John Hancock and capture the munitions stockpiled by their supporters. Paul Revere spread the alarm, as did others
less famously. When the redcoats reached Lexington, 70 American minutemen were there to meet them. "Disperse, ye rebels," a British major ordered. At first they did. Then a shot was fired. In the
ensuing skirmish, eight Americans were killed. The victorious redcoats marched on to Concord, where, as Ralph Waldo Emerson would put it, "the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round
the world." On the redcoats’ daylong retreat back to Boston, more than 250 of them were killed or wounded by American militiamen.Read more

Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Declaration drafting committee presenting its work to Congress.

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement
adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the
British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after
the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.
Read more

The Assembly Room in Philadelphia's Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country" September 22, 1776

Hale was hanged Sep. 22, 1776

Nathan Hale, American hero

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country"

Nathan Hale was a soldier for the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. Widely considered America's first spy,
he volunteered for an intelligence-gathering mission, but was captured by the British. He is best remembered for his speech before being hanged following the Battle of Long Island, in which he said,
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Read more

Washington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776

Link EyeWitness to History.com Washington Crosses the Delaware, 1776

Washington's Crossing of the Delaware River, occurring on
December 25, 1776 during the American Revolutionary War, was the first move in a planned surprise attack organized by George Washington against the Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey.

Planned in some secrecy, Washington led a column of Continental Army troops across the icy Delaware River in a logistically challenging and potentially dangerous operation. Other planned crossings in
support of the operation were either called off or ineffective, but this did not prevent Washington from successfully surprising and defeating the troops of Johann Rall quartered in Trenton. The army
crossed the river back to Pennsylvania, this time burdened by prisoners and military stores taken as a result of the battle. Read more

About the paintingWashington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, by
Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze, c. 1851

Valley Forge December 19, 1777 to June 19, 1778

" . . . you might have tracked the army from White Marsh to Valley Forge by the blood of their feet." - George Washington. Link to William T. Trego Catalogue Raisonne, James A. Mitcherner Art Museum, Bucks County, PA.

Valley Forge, 40 km (25 mi) west of Philadelphia, was the campground of 11,000 troops of George Washington's Continental Army from Dec. 19, 1777, to June 19, 1778.
Because of the suffering endured there by the hungry, poorly clothed, and badly housed troops, 2,500 of whom died during the harsh winter, Valley Forge came to symbolize the heroism of the American
revolutionaries. Despite adverse circumstances, Baron Friedrich von Steuben drilled the soldiers regularly and improved their discipline. Today the historic landmarks and monuments are preserved
within Valley Forge National Historical Park (established 1976).Read more

Link to Valley Forge cabin, replica

Link, British General Cornwallis surrendered at the Siege of Yorktown, EyeWitness History.com

The Washington Family by Edward Savage, painted between 1789 and 1796, shows (left to right): George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington, Eleanor Parke Custis, Martha Washington, and an enslaved servant: probably William Lee or Christopher Sheels.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations
and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Every nation has a creation myth, or origin myth, which is the story people are taught of how the nation came into being. Ours says the United States began with
Columbus's so-called "discovery" of America, continued with settlement by brave Pilgrims, won its independence from England with the American Revolution, and then expanded westward until it became
the enormous, rich country you see today.

That is the origin myth. It omits three key facts about the birth and growth of the United States as a nation. Those facts demonstrate that White Supremacy is
fundamental to the existence of this country.Read

On the dayBennie Coleman lost his house, the day armed U.S. marshals came to his door and ordered him off the property, he slumped in a folding chair across the street and watched the vestiges of his 76 years hauled to
the curb...because he didn’t pay a $134 property tax
bill.

60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Talks To Carl HiaasenIn a little less than a
century, the state of Florida has been transformed from a largely uninhabited swamp to the fourth-largest state in the union. And no one has written about that transformation more successfully than
Carl Hiaasen.

Carl Hiaasen on Florida:

"The Sunshine State is a paradise of scandals teeming with drifters, deadbeats, and misfits drawn here by some dark primordial
calling like demented trout. And you'd be surprised how many of them decide to run for public office."

In 1902, 140,000 miners went on strike, wanting higher pay, shorter work hours, and better housing.....Roosevelt...use[d] the military to run the mines in the "public
interest". The mining companies...accepted the demands of the UMW...more﻿﻿

Presidential Library and Museum

Pro labor: Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much higher consideration.Abraham
Lincoln pro labor quote﻿

Todayeconomic slaveryhas many people indebt chains. Economic or debt slavery ismore efficientfor its masters than the slavery of the Old South. Debt slaves must
feed, house and clothe themselves. Thedebt slave masters, thebanks,credit card companies, and even student loan providers, all rely upon the courts and justice system for enforcement of debt. When economic slaves can’t pay back their debt, they are told to get a second job. Or a third job.

Meanwhile, when thewell-connected mastersof economic slaves get in a financial bind, and
bring our economy to the brink of collapse, they call on politicians in Washington, DC for bailouts.Bankers don’t get second
or third jobs, they get million-dollar bonuses.

Theeconomic slave mastershave access to the best lawyers, sympathetic judges, and sheriff’s
deputies ready to haul the debt slave to court, or throw him and his family out of their
home and into the street. Does anyone see a problem with thisscenario? Where is the John Brown for today’sdebt slaves?﻿

The State Department's top spokesman resigned Sunday, three days after criticizing the Pentagon for its treatment of [Manning]...P.J. Crowley, the assistant secretary of State for public affairs, told a group at [MIT]...that the Pentagon's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning was "ridiculous and stupid and
counterproductive." His comments were made public by a blogger who attended the session.More here, and Politico, andThe Washington
Post

FORTY years ago today, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a seminal moment not only for freedom of the press but also for the role of
whistle-blowers — like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers to expose the mishandling of the war in Vietnam — in defending our democracy.Read more﻿﻿

Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in
Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.Read
more﻿

"I really don't like the term 'PTSD,’” Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Shay told PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" in 2010. "He says the diagnostic
definition of "post-traumatic stress disorder" is a fine description of certain instinctual survival skills that persist into everyday life after a person has been in mortal danger — but the
definition doesn't address the entirety of a person's injury after the trauma of war. "I view the persistence into civilian life after battle," he says, "... as the simple or primary
injury." Dr. Shay on YouTube

Dr. Shay has his own name for the thing the clinical definition of PTSD leaves out. He calls it "moral injury" — and the term is catching on with both the VA and the
Department of Defense.

Moral injury, Dr. Shay says, can happen when "there is a betrayal of what's right by someone who holds legitimate authority in a high-stakes situation."read more

The Marine Corps, the most male of the armed services, is taking its first steps toward integrating women into war-fighting units, starting with its infantry officer
school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

Stars and Stripes exists to provide independent news and information to the U.S. military community, comprised
of active-duty, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families. Unique among the many Department of Defense authorized news outlets, only Stars and Stripes is guaranteed First Amendment privileges
that are subject to Congressional oversight.﻿ Go to the website

Our motto: "FIGHTING FOR THE TRUTH. . .EXPOSING THE CORRUPT" is our battle cry! We go after, not only pompous brasshats and as COL. David Hackworth so ably put it -
the "perfumed princes" like Gen. Wesley Clark - but Gestapo-like MP's, CID, NIS, OIS and other alphabet agency "bully boys" who ignore the Constitution of the United States and the right to Due
Process.﻿

Major Heather Penney recounts the drama in the skies after District of Columbia Air National Guard pilots scrambled to intercept incoming hostile planes. She
describes why F-16’s initially took off from Andrews Air Force Base unarmed – and what she was prepared to do to bring down a plane piloted by terrorists. And she recounts how later that day she
helped escort President Bush and Air Force One back to Andrews Air Force Base.﻿ C-Span
Interview

Information on this website is a free public service. While the information on this site deals with legal issues, it does not constitute
legal advice. If you have specific questions related to information available on this site, you are encouraged to consult an attorney who can investigate the particular circumstances of your
situation.

Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, this website does not warranty or guarantee the accuracy or
availability of the content on this site or on other sites to which we link.

In no event will this website be held liable to any party for any damages arising in any way out of the availability, use, reliance on or inability to use this website
or any information provided by or through this website, or for any claim attributable to errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in, or destructive properties of any information provided by or
through, this website.

Neil J. Gillespie:
1. Does not give legal advice.2. Not a lawyer.3. Not an attorney.4. Not licensed to practice law.5. Did not go to law school.

______________________

Seven Year Anniversary - YouSue.org to NoSue.org

Seven years ago I started the Justice Network with the domain name YouSue.org. This name was chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that
empowered ordinary people to produce and share video.

Through this website I have met folks from all over the country. Some of their stories are profiled here. Many have reached the conclusion that America’s justice system is broken.

The official Justice Network Internet address is now NoSue.org. This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody of justice. Reform American courts or
avoid them. Your life, health and wealth is at risk. But don’t just take my word, listen to the experts on this site.

The stories, images, and videos on this website are in the public
domain, or featured here under the fair use doctrine if copyrighted. I claim no credit for images posted on this site unless noted. If there is an image on this site that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear, E-mail with a link to the image and it will be removed.